Whitechapel - Changing SF Magazines&#039; Business Theory2015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/
Lussumo Vanilla & Feed Publisher
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=205034#Comment_2050342009-11-23T21:51:41-06:002009-11-29T11:41:45-06:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
Technically, this discussion should be in the Printheads section, but it also deals with business issues. (EDIT: WARREN MOVED IT TO PRINTHEADS ANYWAY) But here goes...
There has been some ...
There has been some discussion in Whitechapel regarding the health of SF magazines and what the future holds for them. From what I've seen of the discussions, I don't think anybody's mentioned one of the ideas of management consultant Peter Drucker. He believed that a business' continued slide despite employees' best efforts and enormous capital investment could be attributed to an obsolete business theory.

How does one change a business theory? It starts by asking two sets of analytical questions.

SET ONE: Who are the customers and who are the noncustomers? What is of value to them? What do they pay for?

SET TWO: What do the successes do that we do not do? What do they not do that we know is essential? What do they assume that we know to be wrong?

If these questions were applied to science fiction magazines (and hell, even newspapers), what would the answers be? My partial take as far as SF magazines are concerned are:

SET ONE: Customers--Lovers of science fiction, new readers of science fiction, people curious about SF; Noncustomers--People who can't stand SF. (Yes, yes, I know we need demographics here, but I said this was a partial answer.)

What is of value--Entertaining and thoughtful stories, non-fiction articles related to science fiction, reviews of SF media

What do they pay for---???

SET TWO--Successes--???

Essentials--???

Wrong assumptions--???

Maybe some kind soul can add their thoughts regarding the answers to these questions?]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=205042#Comment_2050422009-11-23T22:29:32-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00frequentcontributorhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5064
Interesting questions, I suppose, if a bit basic and commonly sensible...
For instance, I like sci-fi - more as a teenager than now, but those magazines' readership would have been better back ...
For instance, I like sci-fi - more as a teenager than now, but those magazines' readership would have been better back then, anyway... - but I have NEVER bought a science fiction anthology magazine. Primarily because I would rather have spent my money on comics or glossy magazines, etc., and those old issues (and new ones...) look damn cheap and boring, like an issue of The Believer does now (too much text in a "magazine" = me, falling asleep). So even rabid sci-fi readers can be attributed to the "non-readers" column, which is certainly a problem.

I'd want some more art, or comics, or product reviews or something, in terms of value, but that's what other magazines (and the internet) already offer, so...

In terms of Set Two, I would look at McSweeney's as something the successes do that sci-fi magazines don't. First, they're unlike any other publication out there, and they make themselves seem exclusive. Making you quarterly magazine cost more than every other magazine and making it not look anything like a magazine is certainly one way to stand out from the pack, and catering to that hipster-lit crowd is a good tree to go barking up, especially if you already have some cred in that arena. As far as what other magazines would "know" and "assume" opposite of sci-fi mags, it seems like only people who operate those other magazines would be able to say.

Anyway, I've been picking up Wired magazine over the past year or so, and that seems like a strong starting direction for sci-fi anthology periodicals to look at, because the actual science of our really fucked up world is vastly more interesting than 50's-style silver rockets blasting off to Jupiter or whatever.

And it might be a fanboy/Hollywood cash in, but wouldn't people buy those magazines if there were stories like Avatar: Origins by James Cameron, or Dollhouse: Activate by Joss Whedon or Fringe: Beginnings by J.J. Abrams? Yes, I'm making those story titles up, but those are the sci-fi concepts that excite me, now, so why wouldn't I want to buy a magazine like that? Especially if it cost $30 an issue and only came out once every seven months and was an old, leather bound tome one issue and a discreet flash drive the next (The 80's throwback issue would only be released on a set of six floppy discs with that months music picks on an 8-track, and people would be scouring Ebay for them because they fucking NEEDED to read that magazine.).]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=205066#Comment_2050662009-11-24T03:16:47-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Kosmopolithttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1346
"SET ONE: Customers--Lovers of science fiction, new readers of science fiction, people curious about SF; Noncustomers--People who can't stand SF. (Yes, yes, I know we need demographics here, but ...
I'm afraid I have to disagree.

The circulation of the sf digests is IIRC around 20,000.

The set of people who "like sf" is far, far higher - as witnessed by the success of sf on Tv, in cinemas and for that matter in book stores.

The top-selling sf digest has maybe 2% of the audience of an unsuccessful sf show like Dollhouse.

Anecdotally too, the readership of the digests is OLD. "New readers of sf" start with the likes of Harry Potter and Twilight or with franchise novels like Star Wars and then move on to more intelligent stuff (hopefully).

One of the key problems for the sf magazines - sf readers tend to be early adopters of new tech so they're competing with novels and anthologies on Kindle, websites full of semi-pro fiction for free and even guys like Cory Doctorow who blog some of their fiction and give it away for free.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=205208#Comment_2052082009-11-24T19:01:33-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
@frequentcontributor--Internet Jesus Ellis has pointed out SF magazine design fails in previous posts, I believe.
A couple of previous attempts to do magazines along the lines you were suggesting ...
A couple of previous attempts to do magazines along the lines you were suggesting were Omni and The Twilight Zone Magazine. Somebody can correct me, but I remember Omni's editorial slant being heavily new/pseudoscience with some high quality fiction. The Twilight Zone Magazine tied in articles about the new Twilight Zone series but it also included new fiction. The downside of tying a magazine to one SF series would be what happens when said series loses popularity. So maybe the answer might be something like the SciFi channel magazine but with heavy fiction content.

@Kosmopolit--If the readership of the digests is old, it could be they're the sorts who hate having their literary haven polluted by the presence of "low-class media-related SF."

Your mention of new tech made me wonder if the new model for SF magazines also needs to be giving it away some content for free on a Website and charging fees to either access more content or to order POD hard copies for those who want the physical feel of a digest. Then again, would the economics of POD be practical for periodicals?

Media SF has the reach afforded by TV, film or the Internet, but it doesn't necessarily have the depth of the better written SF stories. Whereas the situation seems to me reversed for SF stories, with lots of depth but not enough reach.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=205363#Comment_2053632009-11-25T15:16:06-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Kosmopolithttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1346
If they were inclined to try it, the sort of companies that might be able to pull off the sort of sf magazine we're talking about would be the owners of syfy or the Discovery Channel - multi-media ...
But why would they be so inclined? At least one, maybe both, of the major magazine distributors in the US went broke last year.

The same factors that are hurting the newspapers are hammering traditional magazines too.

So maybe we need a different paradigm - a web site that offers material for free online and that also offers e-books, POD books and Magcloud magazines.

Could you add a degree of customization to Magcloud offerings so people could get all the month's new fiction; or all the art; or all the fact pieces or a selection of the most popular works across all sections or, say, all Warren Ellis contributions?]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=205364#Comment_2053642009-11-25T15:31:01-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
He believed that a business' continued slide despite employees' best efforts and enormous capital investment could be attributed to an obsolete business theory.
Show me the best efforts and ...
He believed that a business' continued slide despite employees' best efforts and enormous capital investment could be attributed to an obsolete business theory.

Show me the best efforts and enormous capital investment in the core SF magazines, please.

With a few pairs of rose-coloured glasses on and a bit of selective presentation, you could possibly show me best efforts. I could take your argument apart in five minutes or so if I were in a bad mood. Fifteen if I were in a good mood.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=205368#Comment_2053682009-11-25T16:37:26-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
Discoverable sf magazine circulation numbers.
Some demographic information.
I understand the editor of ASIMOV'S has recently claimed to be selling lots of e-copies.
Discoverable sf magazine circulation numbers.

I understand the editor of ASIMOV'S has recently claimed to be selling lots of e-copies.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206073#Comment_2060732009-11-29T11:23:55-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
@warrenellis--Okay. I admit that it was foolish to claim Drucker's analysis could be perfectly applied to explaining the decline of the SF magazines. The management of the SF magazines have skipped ...
If this helps, in applying Drucker's thoughts, is there anything that works in current SF magazine publishing that can be built upon?]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206078#Comment_2060782009-11-29T11:41:02-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
The current set of assumptions that the SF magazine publishers operate under clearly are not working.
...if you're intent on running a business that grows.
The simple fact is that these people ...
The current set of assumptions that the SF magazine publishers operate under clearly are not working.

...if you're intent on running a business that grows.

The simple fact is that these people are, by and large, simply operating a niche service for a clientele that drops year on year for many reasons, not least of which is that their customer base is dying of old age. There's no other explanation that fits the facts that these magazines represent. They're genuinely not interested in new readers. They're there to keep the lights on for the old guard until the last one drops dead.

You see, the general assumption when looking at sf magazines is that they must cater to neophiles. And I've really come to believe that that is not the case.

Therefore, when looking at what they "do not do": try comparing the likes of ANALOG or ASIMOV'S to, say, WIRED magazine. Or, maybe more pointedly, WIRED UK. Which is a neophile's magazine. WIRED has historically enjoyed crossover with sf, for obvious reasons. A compare-and-contrast between WIRED UK and any SF magazine would be interesting in a number of ways.

The one that really fascinates me is INTERZONE. I really want to know what their circulation is. (Also worth noting that, in the last year, its covers and cover design have been the best they've had in years.)]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206082#Comment_2060822009-11-29T11:59:42-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00remotepushhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=551
i buy/read asimov and F&SF, but it always amazes me how much they live in the past when it comes to selling themselves. i enjoy the stories, there is some good material in those, and i am the ...
i can take out a subscription by paypal. but instead of emailing me to renew my subscription and telling me how to use paypal to do so, they send me a letter. usually i'm barely into the subscription, and i'm getting a letter saying renew now, write your credit card number on this random bit of paper and put it in the hands of the postal system. and then i get that letter every month. i just finished a year's subscription to asimov, which i didn't renew for this very reason, and even after not renewing i was still getting letters. i mean for fuck's sake, what century are we living in when someone is wasting their time sending me a dozen letters when a simple email would have perhaps done the job?]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206195#Comment_2061952009-11-30T03:47:06-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00jonlaidlowhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=6837
I used to think that magazines like SFX were the way to go but when you look at the reader's survey results, a large proportion of their audience (people who like SF film, tv, games, etc) do not read ...
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206246#Comment_2062462009-11-30T10:01:17-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
Wouldn't a combined SFX/Interzone be a great thing?
I think that's what the semi-recent revival of AMAZING STORIES was after. (Was it AMAZING or ASTOUNDING?) Obviously, we know how well that ...
Wouldn't a combined SFX/Interzone be a great thing?

I think that's what the semi-recent revival of AMAZING STORIES was after. (Was it AMAZING or ASTOUNDING?) Obviously, we know how well that worked out.

(I also think the reviews section of INTERZONE is by far the weakest part of the magazine, but that's just me, obv)]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206257#Comment_2062572009-11-30T11:00:05-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00spinnerinhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=7371
It seems like there's a huge amount of opportunity here in terms of what could be done with a modern SF magazine, since as stated above the big 3 seem to have happily settled into their rut. Things ...
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206268#Comment_2062682009-11-30T12:02:57-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00remotepushhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=551
i was buying interzone for a while, something about the format just never works for me.
as for the reviews, the fact the film reviews are always out of date seems entirely pointless.
i don't tend ...
as for the reviews, the fact the film reviews are always out of date seems entirely pointless.i don't tend to bother reading the reviews anyway. isn't that what the internet is for?if i am buying a short story magazine i want short stories.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206335#Comment_2063352009-11-30T21:52:23-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
@jonlaidlow--It seems that the common thread among the people who don't read SF books or short stories is that they obtain their SF fix in a more sensually immersive manner. Instead of just using ...
@remotepush--To some degree, the Internet does satisfy the need for review information. The question you need to consider is what sort of information you seek in your review. If you're looking for just "do more people like Story X than hate it"-type information, then the Internet is great for that. But if you're looking for a trustworthy voice that can point you to a story you might not have known about, discuss the themes of the story or even some of the story's background, then a well-crafted review can be a stimulating essay in its own right.

@warrenellis--Layout comparison between new issue of WIRED and issue of F&SF

WIRED--Wide variety of layout formats on many pages, suggestive of surprises and new information throughout the issue

F&SF--Simple columnar format, broken up by either number of columns or occasional cartoon or advertisement. Suggests cheapness of 1920s SF magazines, academic or literary journal.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206349#Comment_2063492009-11-30T23:19:22-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Walks-The-Murder-Dubhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=7715
I guess I'm the patient zero being discussed in all these statistics so let me add some data in the interest of seeing the print magazine we are all envisioning.
I would love a glossy magazine ...
I would love a glossy magazine with ads from SF of all media and genres.

I would like that magazine to either have Hard SF Fantasy excerpts from books or complete short stories from Nebula winners. I have ZERO interest in authors whose claim to fame is Top Seller status. Stabbity-stabbity, pee on it, light it on fire, repeat.

Porn would be welcome although this is a field rife with splintering (what I find sexy may be a turnoff to other fans and definitely vice versa.)

if 20% of the mag had Wired's informative real-tech/trends and 10% GQ's gadget obsession, that would still be very cool.

Book reviews trump Movie reviews for me too, though taking Movie Previews may pay for the Mag (behind this veil, ladies and gentlemen, lie horrors.)

I have only ever collected GQ, Heavy Metal a few American rags and comics. Despite my devouring of Scifi Fantasy (about six books a month) I have never felt the need for one of the current crop of Sci Fi mags. I find online content vastly inadequate, no insult to anyone working in that medium, Coilhouse doesn't do it for me. I'm not a steampunker or the target audience, I'm sure.

So I want a mag, and will pay for the one that doesn't bore me with rehashings of stories Ian M. Banks can do 200% better. Take the money I usually spend on GQ, please. *holds up hard USD*]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206350#Comment_2063502009-11-30T23:39:20-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Don Hilliardhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5974
This seems to be converging inexorably on the idea that it's time for a proper relaunch of OMNI.
Yes, it went to shit in its final years, and there would undoubtedly be newsstand distribution ...
Yes, it went to shit in its final years, and there would undoubtedly be newsstand distribution problems were it to come out now from the same publisher - OMG PORN!!!! - but it really did follow the model that's developing here. A good balance of science fiction and science, with a broad enough range of topics in both to appeal to a wide and well-educated audience, and some of the sharpest art and design of its day.

Relaunch it (or something like it) and tie it into a Web presence with the same values. Limit the crossover between the Web material and the printed material to no more than 25% - maybe primarily the staff-written/recurring features - and don't make the Web site a loss-leader for the magazine; put material on the site that's just as good (or nearly) as what makes it into the print version. Use the Web site for the perishable stuff like film reviews. Maybe a slightly tiered payment system for the contributors, say a 5% kicker if the material's used in the print version, 5% more if it's featured across both platforms (as above, limit that to one or two an issue).]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206392#Comment_2063922009-12-01T06:47:20-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Chadbournhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4970
I feel you're probably looking at issues that are too product-specific. The real reasons why anthology magazines have been in decline are probably societal and quite simple. An anthology magazine ...
It's a regular line among publishing folk that The Lord of the Rings would never be bought by a modern publisher if Tolkien offered it today. It was designed for people who had experience of a society that still had horses and carts on the roads. Anthology magazines were designed for a society that had free time.

You need to have a strong impetus to dedicate time in our current world. As one of the posters above mentioned, brand recognition works - James Cameron, Joss Whedon etc, but new writers and rising writers are going to struggle to gain attention, unless there's some kind of buzz, and they provide the bulk of the stories in anthology magazines. And having one big name writer at the front as a hook just isn't cost effective for most people.

The way we consume stories is changing rapidly. The biggest issue for writers now is to brand themselves effectively to grab attention (something Warren has clearly been doing for years). Simply offering "stories" for sale isn't enough. Stories are everywhere and cheap in our culture these days. And that makes most anthology magazines a product that is not particularly compelling at the very basic level.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206397#Comment_2063972009-12-01T07:37:55-06:002009-12-01T07:55:48-06:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
You need to have a strong impetus to dedicate time in our current world. As one of the posters above mentioned, brand recognition works - James Cameron, Joss Whedon etc, but new writers and rising ...
You need to have a strong impetus to dedicate time in our current world. As one of the posters above mentioned, brand recognition works - James Cameron, Joss Whedon etc, but new writers and rising writers are going to struggle to gain attention, unless there's some kind of buzz, and they provide the bulk of the stories in anthology magazines. And having one big name writer at the front as a hook just isn't cost effective for most people.

Agreed.

Which also speaks to other things I never understood. Yes, all mediums and genres need new writers, and a place for them to learn their trade. I do not, however, believe that every magazine needs to be that place, nor that new and rising writers need to provide the bulk of every anthology magazine.

This, perhaps, comes around to the whole "business theory" thing at the start of the thread. There is no sf magazine that says, "you know, I work for this magazine, not the community or the genre. Why aren't I working out a way to creatively finance a year's worth of pieces from Known & Popular Writers X,Y and Z, taking them away from the other magazines, restructuring the magazine to effect that, and New Writers 10 through 200 can go someplace else?"

("And after that, why aren't I coming up with a dozen other schemes?")]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206404#Comment_2064042009-12-01T08:28:18-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Chadbournhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4970
You know, that does go back to the "business theory" notion, because the pay on most anthology magazines is so piss-poor that most pro-writers can't justify the time to be working on short ...
If a proper living wage was paid for short fiction (and not what publishers laughingly call "market rates"), then they could publish a magazine based around "Known & Popular Writers" and I bet it would sell. The most vocal argument against this is all the new writers who feel it's a way of shutting them out, but in this day and age there are plenty of ways to learn their craft and get their work in front of an audience. Gollancz picked up "The Lies of Locke Lamora" from Scott Lynch from a sample chapter on his blog that an editor haphazardly stumbled across.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206408#Comment_2064082009-12-01T08:43:21-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Will Ellwoodhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2556
John Scalzi wrote something interesting about the pay for short fiction here while also talking about F. Scott Fitzgerald.
For example, here’s one fun fact: The engine of Fitzgerald’s income ...
here while also talking about F. Scott Fitzgerald.

For example, here’s one fun fact: The engine of Fitzgerald’s income (at least until he went to Hollywood) was not his novels but his short stories. He considered them his “day job,” a thing to be endured because writing them would allow him the financial wherewithal to write the novels he preferred to do. And how much did he make for these short stories? Well, in 1920, he sold eleven of them to various magazines for $3,975. This averages to about $360 per story, and (assuming an average length of about 6,000 words) roughly six cents a word.

To flag my own genre here, “Six cents a word,” should sound vaguely familiar to science fiction and fantasy writers, as that’s the current going rate at the “Big Three” science fiction magazines here in the US: Analog (which pays six to eight cents a word), Asimov’s (six cents a word “for beginners”) and Fantasy & Science Fiction (six to nine cents a word). So, sf/f writers, in one sense you can truly say you’re getting paid just as well as F. Scott Fitzgerald did; but in another, more relevant, “adjusted for inflation” sense, you’re making five cents to every one of Fitzy’s dollars. Which basically sucks. This is just one reason why making a living writing short fiction is not something you should be counting on these days.

]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206410#Comment_2064102009-12-01T08:51:44-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
It's more cost effective to put the time into a new novel/TV series/movie pitch.
Yeah, Charlie Stross schooled me on that score years ago. Horrible, really.
It's kind of fascinating to ...
It's more cost effective to put the time into a new novel/TV series/movie pitch.

It's kind of fascinating to consider that even Suicide Girls could scrape up $300 to pay me for 500-750 words. And that $300, at the nine-cent rate, is more than three thousand words at a "popular" sf anthology magazine.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206422#Comment_2064222009-12-01T09:28:53-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Kosmopolithttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1346
I think at one point sf writers wrote for the digests for the exposure - on the assumption that it was effective advertising for theri books.
There were also the serialised novels which used to be ...
There were also the serialised novels which used to be popular and were probably a handy little bonus to the book contract.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206426#Comment_2064262009-12-01T09:40:32-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
There were also the serialised novels which used to be popular and were probably a handy little bonus to the book contract.
Which still happens from time to time. There was a terrible one in, I ...
There were also the serialised novels which used to be popular and were probably a handy little bonus to the book contract.

Which still happens from time to time. There was a terrible one in, I think, ANALOG a year or two back. And, of course, Charlie Stross' ACCELERANDO is a fix-up of a string of connected stories for ASIMOV'S.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206452#Comment_2064522009-12-01T11:39:20-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
@Don Hilliard--I think you're onto something with citing the OMNI model. That could be either a template with 21st-century rebooting, or else an idea source for something that could improve on the ...
@Chadbourn--Brand recognition can be workable depending on the writer. Sometimes a writer may be skilled in working in TV but be absolutely awful working in prose. I loved J. Michael Straczynski's BABYLON 5, but I tried skimming a prose novel he put out and put it back on the bookstore shelf after the first page. Harlan Ellison is a great example of a writer who combined name brand with excellent writing. Perhaps Neil Gaiman or somebody on his level of success could be one of our hypothetical three.

Do writer politics also have to be taken into account with our hypothetical magazine? What little I've heard of the American SF writer's community indicates that personal and business ties are intertwined like ivy, and elevating, say, three especially successful writers at the expense of midlist writers may create unnecessary friction.

@Ginja--Yeah, the pay issue was something that came up in my mind too. I was trying out various number crunching models to see what would work. The various fiction word counts are 20,000 words and less count as short stories, 20,001-40,000 count as novelettes, and 40,000-60,000(?) count as novellas. If we were to pay a quarter per word for a short story per month, that would be something like $60K over the course of a year, which would be a very nice year's wage for a working short fiction writer. Multiply that by 3 top tier writers, and that's $180K paid out for fiction talent. If $60K is too high, how much should be budgeted to make an exclusive contract with the magazine worth the writer's while? Then again, could the conundrum be resolved by rethinking the length of fiction that can be published in this magazine?

To make decent pay for writers work, the advertising model would have to be rethought as well, with advertisers going beyond the SF publishing realm. I suspect that if you flipped through the pages of the Big 3 SF magazines, you would not find ads for video games.

Maybe it's sentimental of me, but I'd want to have the writers paid well, give them the freedom to try whatever they want, and especially have the magazine make money. So maybe the model could be a modified annual foundation grant, where the writer's major obligations are to produce so many words over the course of a year and the forms those words could take is left up to the writer. So it'd be a short story one month, a serialised novel over several months, etc.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206454#Comment_2064542009-12-01T12:02:08-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Will Ellwoodhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2556
Maybe it's sentimental of me, but I'd want to have the writers paid well, give them the freedom to try whatever they want, and especially have the magazine make money. So maybe the model could be a ...
Maybe it's sentimental of me, but I'd want to have the writers paid well, give them the freedom to try whatever they want, and especially have the magazine make money. So maybe the model could be a modified annual foundation grant, where the writer's major obligations are to produce so many words over the course of a year and the forms those words could take is left up to the writer. So it'd be a short story one month, a serialised novel over several months, etc.

I like this idea. But then I think there would be some good in treating writing as a salaried job with a guaranteed income and fixed set of expectations. It would possibly offer the security required for a writer to push themselves to try new things.

Speaking of Interzone I've only ever bought two issues of the magazine. One issue I bought a few years back was in a grotty corner shop in Leicester because it was the first and only time I'd seen the magazine on sale in a shop. It looked like a normal magazine with a black and white interior and I remember little else about it because I've thrown it away. The other copy I bought back in August from Transreal Fiction in Edinburgh and was a back issue from earlier this year I bought for the Bruce Sterling interview and story. The cover and size are fantastic to look at but the page design is still pretty terrible inside.

There were also the serialised novels which used to be popular and were probably a handy little bonus to the book contract.

I seem to remember reading that The Daily Telegraph has been serializing a novel and I remember The Guardian a year or so ago serialized a novel in it's weekend Review supplement. The problem with serialization is that the needs for a piece of serial fiction to work are different to a novel released in one sitting to work. Which is why Charles Stross's Accelerando is designed as it is and most of Charles Dickens work is written the way it is. But then this is also the issue that comics face when been taken from monthly singles into trade paperbacks. Newspapers also used to print more short stories as well.

Does anyone know anything about Japanese Light novels or mobile phone distributed fiction? Wikipedia tells me that light novels are, "often serialized in anthology magazines," and this might provide an example of a working market to look at.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206488#Comment_2064882009-12-01T14:45:19-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
@Ginja--Here is a NY Times article about mobile phone distributed fiction in Japan. My takeaway is that certain technological developments need to happen to have it work in America. Then again, the ...
Here is a NY Times article about mobile phone distributed fiction in Japan. My takeaway is that certain technological developments need to happen to have it work in America. Then again, the reasons for the popularity of such fiction raises new cultural/generational issues regarding audience expectations on writing style and what constitutes artistic depth.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206517#Comment_2065172009-12-01T18:46:47-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Dee_Noirhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5888
I disagree with the idea that SF magazines need to be printing stories by established writers in order to guarantee or encourage success. Perhaps I am being naive, but I had assumed that the audience ...
The problem isn't that SF magazines need to tart themselves up, get competent InDesign people working for them and realise that in a superficial style over content age, image is important, although all these things might very well help. The problem is that SF has always had a traditionally small audience compared to other genres, and that audience is increasingly attracted to the novel over the short story. And SF films, and SF telly and SF comics (FA, looking at you). The short story is no longer considered with the potency which it once was.

'...there are fewer outlets - except for electronic ones - for the short story, fewer magazines, than once there was.' - Brian Aldiss, A Science Fiction Omnibus (Great Britain: Penguin Books, 2007), vii]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206601#Comment_2066012009-12-02T10:13:11-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00spinnerinhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=7371
Along the lines of collecting together a roster of well-known authors and paying them on an ongoing basis to create a steady stream of stories--there's no reason the writers couldn't be doing this ...
Shadow Unit, which is an ongoing supernatural crime serial that runs on a donation model. Any others the rest of you have seen?]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206603#Comment_2066032009-12-02T10:27:30-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
Sf Magazines: some possible budget numbers.
Sf Magazines: some possible budget numbers.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206614#Comment_2066142009-12-02T11:53:51-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Chadbournhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4970
Those budget numbers are fascinating. But all of this just goes to the very heart of what angers me as a writer. A lot of business people try to push that writing is an art and writers should do it ...
And when you factor in pay for writers in the non-print media, this whole short story avenue really does look like a dead end. UK TV writing is paid at about a tenth of US rates (same for acting, directing and the rest). But if you can get sixty grand for a Walking the Dead two-parter, why the hell should you beg for fish from short story mags. Unless you do it for love, of course. Yes, TV writing is a different skillset, but it's not *that* hard to learn the ropes and move into it.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206703#Comment_2067032009-12-02T16:29:32-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Kosmopolithttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1346
So what level of payment would be required for most writers (as opposed to the superstars) to stop regarding these markets as charity cases?
10 cents a word? 20? 50? $1.00?
10 cents a word? 20? 50? $1.00?]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206705#Comment_2067052009-12-02T16:36:39-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Kosmopolithttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1346
While looking for sales data on sf books I came across this article:
Especially when you compare the sales of YA to those of science fiction and fantasy (SF/F for short), which best-selling SF ...

Especially when you compare the sales of YA to those of science fiction and fantasy (SF/F for short), which best-selling SF writer John Scalzi did in May 2008. The Bookscan numbers, which are not accessible to those outside the book industry, were provided to Scalzi by an anonymous friend. "Without mentioning specific numbers or titles . . . the top 50 YA SF/F bestsellers outsold the top 100 adult SF/F bestsellers (adult SF and F are separate lists) by two to one," he wrote at Scalzi.com. In short, Scalzi concludes, those 50 YA books sold twice as many copies as the 100 SF/F titles on the list.

so if sf and fantasy books aimed at young adults sell better than those aiemd at adults, maybe there should be a magazine aimed that market?]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206709#Comment_2067092009-12-02T16:48:17-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Kosmopolithttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1346
Just trowing soem stuff out there:
Long time sf editor - and founder of the Baen books imprint - Jim BAen is publishing Jim Baen's Universe online.
It looks like an exact replica of the ...
Long time sf editor - and founder of the Baen books imprint - Jim BAen is publishing Jim Baen's Universe online.

It looks like an exact replica of the traditional digest only in electronic form - complete with "cover art" .

Funding seems to come from donations but I suspect Baen Books may be subsiding it.

Jim Baen's dead, and BAEN'S UNIVERSE has been cancelled, effective next spring.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206793#Comment_2067932009-12-03T00:02:34-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
To summarize some of the ideas that have been discussed so far:
SET ONE:
What customers value--Something that doesn't have a cheap and boring layout, something that caters to their interests ...
SET ONE:

What customers value--Something that doesn't have a cheap and boring layout, something that caters to their interests (e.g. scientific trends, gadgetry)

What customers will pay for--Good short stories from skillful and known writers; possibly art, comics, or product reviews.

SET TWO:

What the successes do--Covers the whole range of SF media instead of just print; appeals to a wide and well-educated audience; creates enough excitement and interest in its subjects to create a need to buy the magazine; takes advantage of new publishing technologies, new communications technologies, and new payment methods; friendly to more than its niche audience; pays its writers better

OMNI and WIRED have been cited as either models of success or templates to build on.

Distribution of the magazine would also be an issue. Is there still a point in looking for a major magazine distributor? Or would a combination of E-book, PDF, POD and Magcloud work to generate a subscriber base?

Format of the magazine could be either the old paper copy, or else it could be first appearance of material on the Website with a variety of value-added print options in print form. For example, the E-book would be cheap but lack detailed layouts. The print version would have better layouts or even limited edition autographed versions.

How would the magazine earn revenue? I suspect relying solely on subscriptions will be insufficient. But if advertisements are seen as a source of revenue, would having Google ads on the site generate sufficient amounts of money? Or could you charge more to get certain types of print copy (e.g. limited edition magazine autographed by authors)?

I note that in a way the old anthology magazine seems formulated on what seems a democratic model. The editor traded on the name writers to draw readers' dollars and help draw readers' attentions to the new and upcoming writers. But it sounds like our hypothetical Big Names Only magazine may appear less democratic by limiting editorial space to those with proven track records.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206798#Comment_2067982009-12-03T00:54:18-06:002009-12-03T00:59:03-06:00Kosmopolithttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1346
"I note that in a way the old anthology magazine seems formulated on what seems a democratic model. The editor traded on the name writers to draw readers' dollars and help draw readers' ...
You don't have to pay everyone the same rate - or give them the same exposure.

For example, you could have a web-only section that paid a lower rate than the stories that went into the hard copy.

Or you publish everything online with an annual "Best of ..." hardcopy anthology. You pay the big names an additional fee up front for use of their stories in the Best of and fill it out with the best of the stuff from the lesser known writers.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206829#Comment_2068292009-12-03T04:09:38-06:002009-12-09T22:48:47-06:00Lucifalhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=376
I guess I'm not surprised that no one has mentioned Murky Depths yet, but we do a lot of what people have said they'd buy if there was a print magazine that did it. Hmm, that's sounds ...
Murky Depths yet, but we do a lot of what people have said they'd buy if there was a print magazine that did it. Hmm, that's sounds awkward.

Miranda's Eyes:What customers will pay for--Good short stories from skillful and known writers; possibly art, comics, or product reviews.

We do most of that.

Chadbourn:the writer only gets the third cut of the profits from any novel (publisher gets first, bookseller second) - and don't forget the distributor. If small press publishers are "lucky enough"(sic) to have a distibutor then it'll probably cost them to get their publications in a shop - then if they don't sell there's returns to consider.

And no, we don't pay good rates. But that's not that we don't want to, it's because we spend our meagre budget on producing a good quality print anthology magazine, mixing comics, prose, articles, interviews, and starting with Issue #11 a sprinkling of book reviews. Mostly our stories are 5k words or less so those with low concentration can whisk through before they get bored.

Take the current Issue. We have a short story from Mike Carey (which is also the first half of a writing competition), five other prose stories (all with commissioned double-page spread illustrations), five comics ranging from one to nine pages (one of them a graphic novel serialisation of Richard Calder's Dead Girls), articles on Steampunk from Robert Rankin and Toby Frost, an interview with the cover artist Lars Rasmussen, one poem and a regular column-with-attitude from Matt Wallace, not to mention the bios page for the comic creators.

Jon Courtenay Grimwood had a story in Issue #1 and is writing another for us which will appear in Issue #12. Juliet E McKenna wrote a story for us that appeared in Issue #9 and said, at the BFS awards in September, that the small press magazines give established authors a chance to experiment and go where their book publishers might not allow them to, and she's eager to write us another story. It is important for small press anthology magazines to attract "names" and many of them appreciate when a publisher is trying something that doesn't quite fit in any of the "accepted categories".

I'm hoping that one day we'll be a in a position to pay pro rates but as you can see from Warren's budget model (and our distributor takes 57.5% not 55% - but that probably says more about my negotiation skills) publishing a sci-fi magazine is not a business to be in if you want to make money - at least not for yourself or your contributors.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206879#Comment_2068792009-12-03T10:43:25-06:002009-12-03T10:46:50-06:00Dee_Noirhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5888
I've been aware of Murky Depths for some time and just let me be the first to say, I think you guys are doing an absolutely spectacular job. If there is a populist future for the short story based ...
N.B. Can't believe I was moronic enough to miss your table at the MCM09. I guess once I see a stack of Freakangels volume 3, I'm a bit dazed and confused for the rest of the day.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206902#Comment_2069022009-12-03T12:10:31-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Lucifalhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=376
I reckon it'll be in publications that follow a similar pattern to yours.
But not OURS?
I reckon it'll be in publications that follow a similar pattern to yours.

But not OURS?]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=206906#Comment_2069062009-12-03T12:21:45-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
Probably not yours, Terry, no. You don't have the funding or the distribution, for two things.
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=207466#Comment_2074662009-12-06T01:16:47-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00AndrDrewhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=7793
I am surprised no one has mentioned what is going on at Tor.com
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=207484#Comment_2074842009-12-06T05:10:52-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
I'm surprised you joined just to post that.
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=207618#Comment_2076182009-12-06T23:56:05-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
@spinnerin--Having writers supported by fan donations is certainly an interesting concept. But I question whether the Shadow Unit model would provide the type of steady and reliable income stream ...
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=207665#Comment_2076652009-12-07T08:48:33-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00AndrDrewhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=7793
no. didn't join just to post that. I've been lurking around for a while, and I know there are often things that I feel some straonge need to comment on. And now I probably will. poor world.
Also, ...
Also, I hit the post button a little... early on that one. Nor sure how, and didn't want to compound mistakes.I know that site is no magazine, not in content or format, but they've been doing serialized ficton amongst everything else. It's also from 'authors I've hear of before', not new authors, and that sounded familiar to what people have been posting here. So I wanted to ask better heads than mine whether any of 'that-all' is applicable to the discussion.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=207667#Comment_2076672009-12-07T08:51:32-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00spinnerinhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=7371
I agree, I think it would be hard to pull off. AFAIK, Shadow Unit provides some supplemental income for the writers, but all of them are dependent on novel sales. Still, it's a good direction to ...
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=208098#Comment_2080982009-12-09T08:25:13-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00an unhealthy shinehttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=7355
I think that the real issue is that there are actually several different markets out there for scifi anthology mags, some of which may be represented on here.
There is the ever diminishing market ...
There is the ever diminishing market for the likes of Analog, and Asimov's, and for that matter Interzone, in my opinion the situation there is as described above, and there's not a lot to do about that.

Then there is probably a market for a McSweeny's style luxurious, intelligent, exclusive and dare I say it literary and esoteric book format periodical, published anything from quarterly to annually, and maybe taking some of the POD ideas from that thread about having multiple formats.

There is probably a market for a cutsy, chibi, Japanese, WALL:E, post-emo, style mag which has lots of white and pink and pictures, with pop culture and gadget articles alongside short shorts, comics and reviews.

I'm sure there's a market for a hard real science, genetics, mag with longer shorts, and even serialised novels, in depth interviews and the occasional essay, and gadgets reviews.

There's a market for Murky Depths.

And I would be willing to bet on the existence of a sizeable market for a YA magazine, with short stories, novel previews, and film, and computer game news and reviews, and interviews.

There's more I'm sure, that's just off the top of my head.

Could any or all of them make money? Yeah probably with enough time and investment up front, at least for a time, some may fall out of fashion, and others could easily emerge, that's culture for you!]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=208108#Comment_2081082009-12-09T09:26:56-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00warrenellishttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2
some may fall out of fashion, and others could easily emerge, that's culture for you!
QFT
some may fall out of fashion, and others could easily emerge, that's culture for you!

QFT]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=208163#Comment_2081632009-12-09T15:21:34-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Kosmopolithttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1346
@mylightshinesapath: excellent post.
Just as another example: there's a huge, huge market for what's known as "Supernatural romance" or "paranormal romance".
Twilight is the ...
Just as another example: there's a huge, huge market for what's known as "Supernatural romance" or "paranormal romance".

Twilight is the 800 pound gorilla of the genre, the mass market breakout ala Star Wars. But there are tons of other stuff like it.

There's probably a market for a magazine catering to that audience.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=208215#Comment_2082152009-12-09T22:26:31-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Lucifalhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=376
The short story magazine or anthology - so I'm often reminded by bookshop managers - has never been a good seller.
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=208260#Comment_2082602009-12-10T06:22:43-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00an unhealthy shinehttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=7355
Cheers for the positive comments. Yeah of course the supernatural romance one, forgot about that.
Lucifal I agree that anthologies of prose are not normally great sellers - but that doesn't mean ...
Lucifal I agree that anthologies of prose are not normally great sellers - but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for magazines that have short stories just that they need other things to hook readers in as well, which I think everyone who has contributed to this thread has recognised.]]>
Changing SF Magazines' Business Theoryhttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=7290&Focus=210085#Comment_2100852009-12-22T10:03:56-06:002015-03-31T13:13:09-05:00Miranda's Eyeshttp://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1443
Lightspeed at least recognizes e-books exist. But is it still same old same old but slightly shinier?
Lightspeed at least recognizes e-books exist. But is it still same old same old but slightly shinier?]]>